A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I Will Never Understand Wind



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 05, 01:03 PM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah, I hate that when it looks perfect, so you take off and get your
teeth handed to you... Someday I'm gonna have to learn how to use all
the meterology gadget stuff... otoh, if I KNEW there was wind shear I
would stay on the ground, at least this way I get to go flying...

denny

  #12  
Old May 5th 05, 01:19 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay ..

I generally look at the 3 - 6,000 ft level for wind that is moving
considerably
faster than that down low. I find the boundry area between them to be
generally turbulent when that situation exists. So even on an absolutely
gorgeous
and still day down low you can get a bumpy ride up through that layer.


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:sZaee.56223$c24.36319@attbi_s72...
Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After
a VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps. In fact, we broke
the record here on both Sunday and Monday... (Take THAT all you "global
warming" pessimists!)

When we got to the hangar, the air was as still as death. The wind sock
hung limp as a rag, and AWOS was reporting winds variable at nuthin'...
Flight service mentioned nothing about turbulence (for a change) -- so we
taxied out to Rwy 25 in anticipation of a smooth ride to Clinton, IA...

Initially after departure all was smooth -- but by 1500 feet we were
getting bounced pretty good. By 3000, we were inside a popcorn popper.
Mary climbed to 7500 feet before we penetrated the haze layer, and popped
out into the clear, smooth air on top. It was a VERY uncomfortable ride
until then -- and, of course, she had to descend back down through it to
land.

On the return flight a couple of hours later, it was even worse. Now we
had heating of the day, with the sun on the dark, freshly plowed fields --
and the ride was wild, indeed. However, again it was smoother down LOW --
which was bizarre -- than it was in the middle altitudes.

I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is
still stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have
guessed what was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead.
By all appearances, it was the perfect day to fly -- yet it was the most
uncomfortable flight we've had in a good long time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



  #13  
Old May 5th 05, 01:21 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ADDS is the first place I start. And the wind page is my first
page to get a sense of what's moving where. I agree totally
with john smith.



"john smith" wrote in message
...
WOW!
Don't you guys even use the Winds page on the ADDS?
Pick a day and time and step up and down the altitudes.
It will tell you everything you want to know.
Do the same thing with the temperatures at different altitudes.
It's even color coded. Use the streamline display option.



  #14  
Old May 5th 05, 03:24 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?


Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #15  
Old May 5th 05, 05:30 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jay Honeck" writes:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)


Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?


Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)


So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
  #16  
Old May 5th 05, 05:54 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?


Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)


So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?


What climate scientists (be sure of your references before responding, they
might not be all you believe)?






  #17  
Old May 5th 05, 05:58 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?


Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)


So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?


What climate scientists (be sure of your references before responding, they
might not be all you believe)?








  #18  
Old May 5th 05, 07:07 PM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny

  #19  
Old May 5th 05, 07:28 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Denny wrote:
Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?


Dinosaur farts?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

  #20  
Old May 5th 05, 11:12 PM
R.L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the

(anti-industry, ant-growth, anti-social, socialist) climate(pseudo)
scientists are wrong, then?


Sounds like a pretty accurate statement to me.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.